Comments on: Inequality and Policy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/02/10/inequality-and-policy/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: pushmedia1 http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/02/10/inequality-and-policy/#comment-20767 pushmedia1 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:27:15 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2768#comment-20767 Its amazing how often people confuse the measurable proxy, "quantity of educated citizens,” with the thing policy makers should care about “quantity of citizens with economically remunerative skills” . This confusion stems from a belief that the mechanism linking education and outcomes is that it directly increases skills. <br><br>Anyone who has taught undergrads couldn't have stared out into a classroom full of half-asleep, uninterested faces and still believe sitting there is making those students more efficient. Yet most that teach undergrads believe more education directly leads to better labor market outcomes.<br><br>Goldin/Katz don't discuss any evidence that this is the true mechanism. (I'm too lazy to dig the book up, but I believe the explicitly mention they just assume this is the true mechanism.) This is disappointing because its a key assumption underlying their policy prescriptions that they believe the correlations between years of schooling and outcomes that existed in the data in the past will continue to hold in the future.<br><br>Also, I'll just point out that university-based academics have incentive to believe more (rather than better, whatever that means) education leads to more labor market efficiency. Its amazing how often people confuse the measurable proxy, “quantity of educated citizens,” with the thing policy makers should care about “quantity of citizens with economically remunerative skills” . This confusion stems from a belief that the mechanism linking education and outcomes is that it directly increases skills.

Anyone who has taught undergrads couldn't have stared out into a classroom full of half-asleep, uninterested faces and still believe sitting there is making those students more efficient. Yet most that teach undergrads believe more education directly leads to better labor market outcomes.

Goldin/Katz don't discuss any evidence that this is the true mechanism. (I'm too lazy to dig the book up, but I believe the explicitly mention they just assume this is the true mechanism.) This is disappointing because its a key assumption underlying their policy prescriptions that they believe the correlations between years of schooling and outcomes that existed in the data in the past will continue to hold in the future.

Also, I'll just point out that university-based academics have incentive to believe more (rather than better, whatever that means) education leads to more labor market efficiency.

]]> By: pushmedia1 http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/02/10/inequality-and-policy/#comment-20766 pushmedia1 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:27:15 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2768#comment-20766 Its amazing how often people confuse the measurable proxy, "quantity of educated citizens,” with the thing policy makers should care about “quantity of citizens with economically remunerative skills” . This confusion stems from a belief that the mechanism linking education and outcomes is that it directly increases skills. <br><br>Anyone who has taught undergrads couldn't have stared out into a classroom full of half-asleep, uninterested faces and still believe sitting there is making those students more efficient. Yet most that teach undergrads believe more education directly leads to better labor market outcomes.<br><br>Goldin/Katz don't discuss any evidence that this is the true mechanism. (I'm too lazy to dig the book up, but I believe the explicitly mention they just assume this is the true mechanism.) This is disappointing because its a key assumption underlying their policy prescriptions that they believe the correlations between years of schooling and outcomes that existed in the data in the past will continue to hold in the future.<br><br>Also, I'll just point out that university-based academics have incentive to believe more (rather than better, whatever that means) education leads to more labor market efficiency. Its amazing how often people confuse the measurable proxy, “quantity of educated citizens,” with the thing policy makers should care about “quantity of citizens with economically remunerative skills” . This confusion stems from a belief that the mechanism linking education and outcomes is that it directly increases skills.

Anyone who has taught undergrads couldn't have stared out into a classroom full of half-asleep, uninterested faces and still believe sitting there is making those students more efficient. Yet most that teach undergrads believe more education directly leads to better labor market outcomes.

Goldin/Katz don't discuss any evidence that this is the true mechanism. (I'm too lazy to dig the book up, but I believe the explicitly mention they just assume this is the true mechanism.) This is disappointing because its a key assumption underlying their policy prescriptions that they believe the correlations between years of schooling and outcomes that existed in the data in the past will continue to hold in the future.

Also, I'll just point out that university-based academics have incentive to believe more (rather than better, whatever that means) education leads to more labor market efficiency.

]]>